[Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT

[mike.wikipedia at gmail.com]

On 2009-08-06 12:01, Jade Harold wrote:
>> Trying to press a en.wp policy(especially one as broad and controversial as WP:NOT) on anyone else is foolish and likely to be resisted.
>
> Pete, I disagree with you especially in a case that a local project
> try to omit key concepts such as Consensus Policy. WP:NOT#DEMO and
> WP:NOTLAW are generally approved by broad members and these items
> define well the basic behavior of community decision making and
> treatment of rules of Wikipedia, based on Consensus. I rather feel it
> foolish to eliminate these stuff if someone in the local already
> notice the importance.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Let's get down to basics:
1. What's the purpose of Wiki[p|m]edia? Roughly, to distribute "all 
knowledge". That's the mission. 
(http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement)

2. How do we do that? *What* knowledge? *Whose* knowledge? What is it, 
in short, that separates Wikimedia's projects from other things out 
there? Well, that'd be the [[m:Founding_principles]]. NPOV, freedom to 
contribute, wiki process, free license. (and existence of a dispute 
resolution, if needed). A few further policies, like [[WP:NOTLAW]], are 
of course necessary to cover our backsides...

3. How do we get around doing this in practice? How do we make the daily 
work as efficient as possible? In terms of what's in, what's out, 
exactly how should decisions be made, etc, etc. That is - to me - the 
point of policies such as WP:NOT#Community and a few other points in WP:NOT.



For me, the first two points determine very much what will be the result 
of our work. The philosophy and the ideas behind the project. The third 
point is technicalities which governs how we'll get there. Sure, some 
paths will be easier, some will be harder; some paths will match better 
with certain cultures or mindsets, other paths will match other 
mindsets. But! This is all about the path to the goal, not the goal in 
itself. *If two paths arrive at equivalent encyclopedias, I see no 
reason why the foundation or anyone else outside the community should 
care: it's the community's choice.*

So, my two cents would be: Don't confuse the process, the encyclopedia 
writing, with the goal, the encyclopedia. The *writing* is not - should 
not be - the goal. Right?

\Mike